Commitment Checklist: Auditing Author Commitments in Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00003v1
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 05:37:09 GMT
• Title: Commitment Checklist: Auditing Author Commitments in Peer Review
• Abstract summary: We present a large-scale audit of author commitments using large language models (LLMs) to compare rebuttals against camera-ready versions.<n>We find that while a majority of promised changes are implemented, a significant share (about 25%) are not, with "missing experiments" among the most frequently unfulfilled.<n>We propose the idea of Author Commitment Checklist, which would alert authors and organizers to unaddressed promises.
• Score: 55.67642089544162
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Peer review author responses often include commitments to add experiments, release code, or clarify content in the final paper. Yet, there is currently no systematic mechanism to ensure authors fulfill these promises. In this position paper, we present a large-scale audit of author commitments using large language models (LLMs) to compare rebuttals against camera-ready versions. Analyzing the commitments from ICLR-2025 and EMNLP-2024, we find that while a majority of promised changes are implemented, a significant share (about 25%) are not, with "missing experiments" and other high-impact items among the most frequently unfulfilled. We demonstrate that LLM-based tools can feasibly detect the promises. Finally, we propose the idea of Author Commitment Checklist, which would alert authors and organizers to unaddressed promises, increasing accountability and strengthening the integrity of the peer review process. We discuss the benefits of this practice and advocate for its adoption in future conferences.

Related papers

• Recommending Best Paper Awards for ML/AI Conferences via the Isotonic Mechanism [10.746401441903174]
  We introduce an author-assisted mechanism to facilitate the selection of best paper awards.<n>Our method employs the Isotonic Mechanism for eliciting authors' assessments of their own submissions.<n>We prove that truthfulness holds even when the utility function is merely nondecreasing and additive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T18:30:42Z)
• Learning to Summarize by Learning to Quiz: Adversarial Agentic Collaboration for Long Document Summarization [86.98098988779809]
  We propose SummQ, a novel adversarial multi-agent framework for long document summarization.<n>Our approach employs summary generators and reviewers that work collaboratively to create and evaluate comprehensive summaries.<n>We evaluate SummQ on three widely used long document summarization benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T08:36:19Z)
• AI and the Future of Academic Peer Review [0.1622854284766506]
  Large language models (LLMs) are being piloted across the peer-review pipeline by journals, funders, and individual reviewers.<n>Early studies suggest that AI assistance can produce reviews comparable in quality to humans.<n>We show that supervised LLM assistance can improve error detection, timeliness, and reviewer workload without displacing human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T17:27:12Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Re$^2$: A Consistency-ensured Dataset for Full-stage Peer Review and Multi-turn Rebuttal Discussions [2.5226834810382113]
  We introduce the largest consistency-ensured peer review and rebuttal dataset named Re2.<n>This dataset comprises 19,926 initial submissions, 70,668 review comments, and 53,818 rebuttals from 24 conferences and 21 workshops on OpenReview.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T16:02:52Z)
• Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment [59.09144776166979]
  Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:58:00Z)
• Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
  We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM) Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z)
• When Reviewers Lock Horn: Finding Disagreement in Scientific Peer Reviews [24.875901048855077]
  We introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T11:57:51Z)
• Has the Machine Learning Review Process Become More Arbitrary as the Field Has Grown? The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment [86.77085171670323]
  We present a larger-scale variant of the 2014 NeurIPS experiment in which 10% of conference submissions were reviewed by two independent committees to quantify the randomness in the review process. We observe that the two committees disagree on their accept/reject recommendations for 23% of the papers and that, consistent with the results from 2014, approximately half of the list of accepted papers would change if the review process were randomly rerun.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T21:26:12Z)
• Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review [11.413240461538589]
  We propose a novel peer prediction mechanism (H-DIPP) building on recent work in the information elicitation literature. The revenue raised in the submission stage auction is used to pay reviewers based on the quality of their reviews in the reviewing stage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-27T23:47:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.